Comment by jacquesm
3 days ago
What's with the bad takes in this thread. That's two strawmen in one comment, it's getting a bit crowded.
3 days ago
What's with the bad takes in this thread. That's two strawmen in one comment, it's getting a bit crowded.
Or the original point doesn't actually hold up to basic scrutiny and is indistinguishable from straw itself.
The original point, that LLMs are plagiarising inputs, is a very common and common sense opinion.
There are court cases where this is being addressed currently, and if you think about how LLMs operate, a reasonable person typically sees that it looks an awful lot like plagiarism.
If you want to claim it is not plagiarism, that requires a good argument, because it is unclear that LLMs can produce novelty, since they're literally trying to recreate the input data as faithfully as possible.
I need you to prove to me that it's not plagiarism when you write code that uses a library after reading documentation, I guess.
> since they're literally trying to recreate the input data as faithfully as possible.
Is that how they are able to produce unique code based on libraries that didn't exist in their training set? Or that they themselves wrote? Is that how you can give them the documentation for an API and it writes code that uses it? Your desire to make LLMs "not special" has made you completely blind to reality. Come back to us.
4 replies →
HN has guidelines for a reason.
You're adhering to an excess of rules, methinks!